Intelligent Biblical Conversation?

Yes, there actually is such a thing.

I have noticed that there are alot of different people on this site, with lots of differing opinions as to weather or not we were intelligently designed or evolved through an evolutionary process from single celled organizms. This is a subject that has pretty much consumed me for the past few years and I would like to outline what I have concluded through my own personal research.

Evolution: A few years back a big concern of mine was evolution. I believed in God but, doubted weather or not things happened the way the bible actually accounted them. This is no longer a concern for me and the place it stopped being a concern is actually quite ironic. It was in my Science class while studying Evolution.

What I concluded upon finishing the course is that; Evolution is completely false. Now thats a big statement. I should probably back it up a little bit. The fossils we find that are believed to be proof of pre-historic man are actually no proof at all. If you were to actually look at one of these fossils you would probably be slightly skeptical as I was. There are no full skulls, no pefectly skulpted skeletons like we see in museums.

What Scientists have found, are small fragments. A piece of a skull, a femer, or the jawbone to a face are all they ever find. The rest is constructed with their vivid imagination and some plaster. You might have heard of the Java man. Scientists believed for a short period of time that he was their “missing link”. But he was only a fragment of skull and a small piece of femer. In today’s world we are so quick to believe what most scientists say.

People dont question for themselves anymore. At least, they dont question the scientists, the allmighty benevolent scientist. Most people have this mindset that if theres a study on a certain subject that it is absolutely correct. But for every study out there there are a hundred more that say just the oposite, which you T-men know better than anyone.

This is where the word exact-science comes in to play. A true oxy-moron if I have ever heard one. Scientist do their tests on whatever they find and tag an age on it. Carbon-dating, as far as I know, is the only method they use. A process in which they examin the half-life of the carbon isotopes in the fossils or whatever it may be.

This method seems incorrect to me, and to my associates because, it is impossible to determine how much carbon was originally there. Personally I dont believe, the world is more then 20,000 years old. But I’m just a crazy bible fanatic right? It is not absolutely absurd to believe what I believe. A simple math equation can show that if you started with 2 humans in 400 years you would have over 100,000.

But my message is not about exposing what is wrong with science, or getting you to believe what I do. My message is about being open and discovering for yourself what you beieve. You all know that old methods and old ways are shit, to put it quite bluntly. Weightlifters back in the day would benifit so greatly from our knowledge now. I think its time for a change in the way we think too. I’d like to end with letting everyone know that I have a large ammount of respect for T-Nation.
Note: My grammar is terrible.

Wow.
So wrong it’s not funny.

Carbon dating isn’t the only method used. And we CAN tell how much carbon their was by looking at how much substance is left. The carbon isn’t destroyed as it half-lives, it is converted to another element (which one, however, slips my mind). Uranium dating, as well, is much more accurate and can be used for MUCH older stuff due to it’s immensely (billions of years long) half-life period.

We have found near-full skeletons. And the ones we “assume” are based on physiology, not the creativity of scientists.

No offense meant, but you sound like a fourteen year old Christian trying to save creation in his own mind by disproving evolution. You sound like you’ve never taken, or never payed any attention in, a biology class at the college level (AP Bio or Bio 101). You obviously have no knowledge of evolution, Darwin, or biology in general.

Yes, we need to think for ourselves. But that means taking in evidence from both sides. Sorry, but evolution easily outclasses creation in my mind because it has more evidence. Simple as that.

Go take a biology class, or, better yet, google “evolution”, “Carbon dating”, and “Charles Darwin” before you make accusations of the falsehood of evolution.

On the “Religious Fanatic” scale from 1 to 10, I probably rate about a 2 or 3. I consider myself an optimistic agnostic.

“Optimistic” because I can’t concieve of any series of natural events that could possibly lead from there being no life in the universe to what we have today, regardless of the time frame. “Agnostic” because I don’t think it’s possible for me to understand the nature of a being capable of bringing about my creation.

You should expect to be told that you are ignorant with regard to the facts surrounding Evolution, which with all due respect is probably true. I know that is the case with myself, but I’m not terribly concerned about it. To believe that any given life form came to be as a result of some accident of nature and chemistry, and then proceeded to adapt to it’s surroundings and give birth to mutations that would eventually become entirely different forms of creatures, is no less plausible than any given creation theory.

[quote]Deadend66 wrote:

Evolution: A few years back a big concern of mine was evolution. I believed in God but, doubted weather or not things happened the way the bible actually accounted them. This is no longer a concern for me and the place it stopped being a concern is actually quite ironic. It was in my Science class while studying Evolution.[/quote]

Unlike others, my offense is intended. We’ve had enough of this BS and we don’t need any more. And this is a great discredit to brilliant men who’ve done great work which has led to the saving of untold lives(not souls).

A few years back? An internet post? Your HS science class? Darwin spent 5 yrs. on the Beagle and didn’t publish OoS until almost two decades later, Gregor Mendel spent 7 yrs. growing pea plants and the data was largely ignored for nearly four decades, when it was discovered to agree with lots of the data generated since and aligned well with OoS. Since then, legions of men have produced lifetimes of work across many disciplines in concordence with and based upon those theories. And you think sitting in HS “a few years back” you figured it out?

I’m all for a hands-off deity or a God that controls evolution through supernatural means and exists on planes of existence we can’t comprehend (which mathematics and physics quite easily demonstrate the existence of and our influence by), but in order to disprove macroevolution as it currently stands, you should start here:

I suggest you not only disprove these examples, but show how they instead indicate non-supernatural divine intervention (talk about an oxymoron) in the creation of species as we know them. It would help if your counter theory also made some predictions of the niches not yet fully explored.

If you come up with a complete answer in less than 5 yrs. either a) it’s wrong and you need to do more work or b) you are the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior and should have more important things to do than post on an internet chat board and/or prove evolution.

lol

We need Stevo on this.

What exactly was intelligent about this?

And oh yeah, welcome back steve0. Or whoever.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Deadend66 wrote:

Evolution: A few years back a big concern of mine was evolution. I believed in God but, doubted weather or not things happened the way the bible actually accounted them. This is no longer a concern for me and the place it stopped being a concern is actually quite ironic. It was in my Science class while studying Evolution.

Unlike others, my offense is intended. We’ve had enough of this BS and we don’t need any more. And this is a great discredit to brilliant men who’ve done great work which has led to the saving of untold lives(not souls).

A few years back? An internet post? Your HS science class? Darwin spent 5 yrs. on the Beagle and didn’t publish OoS until almost two decades later, Gregor Mendel spent 7 yrs. growing pea plants and the data was largely ignored for nearly four decades, when it was discovered to agree with lots of the data generated since and aligned well with OoS. Since then, legions of men have produced lifetimes of work across many disciplines in concordence with and based upon those theories. And you think sitting in HS “a few years back” you figured it out?

I’m all for a hands-off deity or a God that controls evolution through supernatural means and exists on planes of existence we can’t comprehend (which mathematics and physics quite easily demonstrate the existence of and our influence by), but in order to disprove macroevolution as it currently stands, you should start here:

I suggest you not only disprove these examples, but show how they instead indicate non-supernatural divine intervention (talk about an oxymoron) in the creation of species as we know them. It would help if your counter theory also made some predictions of the niches not yet fully explored.

If you come up with a complete answer in less than 5 yrs. either a) it’s wrong and you need to do more work or b) you are the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior and should have more important things to do than post on an internet chat board and/or prove evolution.
[/quote]

Lucasa wins at the giant series of tubes.

With us destroying species left right and centre I expect God will start miracling new ones to replace them anytime soon.
Watch this space…

But I will agree with you in that our current understanding of evolution is currently flawed.

What i think we will find in the future is that the genetic code is more more responsive to external stimulus. It will arm our offspring with the necessary tools to survive in that world eg the removal of unnecessary body features eg wisdom teeth, thick body hair etc

We will also find that this happens much faster than we currently think, hence no intermediate fossil record.
But i cant prove it.

I think we were created and evolved. Evolution at least in a general sense works. But regressing backwards by simply asking where things cames from you essetially get to an infinate regress. Since an infinate regress is a logical fallacy one has to conclude the very first thing that ever existed had to come from something, someone, or somewhere. I still believed Aristotle had it right with his thoery of the unmoved-mover and unchanged-changer.
The differnce between theists and antheists is this: Theists believe that something came from an orgional something in the end we call God. Atheists believe that something came from nothing. Logically, the latter does not work.

[quote]Kiwigeezer wrote:

What i think we will find in the future is that the genetic code is more more responsive to external stimulus. It will arm our offspring with the necessary tools to survive in that world eg the removal of unnecessary body features eg wisdom teeth, thick body hair etc[/quote]

Read up on epigenetics, the genome is pretty rigid, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do anything with it.

[quote]We will also find that this happens much faster than we currently think, hence no intermediate fossil record.
But i cant prove it.[/quote]

Genetic and epigenetic factors have already armed us with things a powerful capacity called intellect. It allows us to snatch solutions out of the ether and see the future in order to anticipate, prevent, and solve problems rather than react to them and just survive. Not to say that the genome is useless as a survival means, it’s the most successful thus far, but intellect extends survival outside of the strictly chemical realm.

It also allows us to determine many many things not recorded in the fossil record…

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I think we were created and evolved. Evolution at least in a general sense works. But regressing backwards by simply asking where things cames from you essetially get to an infinate regress. Since an infinate regress is a logical fallacy one has to conclude the very first thing that ever existed had to come from something, someone, or somewhere. I still believed Aristotle had it right with his thoery of the unmoved-mover and unchanged-changer.
The differnce between theists and antheists is this: Theists believe that something came from an orgional something in the end we call God. Atheists believe that something came from nothing. Logically, the latter does not work. [/quote]

Why is an infinite regression a logical fallacy? Is it because you just can’t conceive it?

And IMO, this is at a level far removed from macroevolution. Any “being” that wrote the laws of physics and set the universe in motion can surely guide evolution entirely without our ability to even be cognizant about it.

“When you do things right, no one can be sure you’ve done anything at all.”

[quote]lucasa wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Why is an infinite regression a logical fallacy? Is it because you just can’t conceive it?.
[/quote]

Excellent question! Concieving infinity has nothing to do with the problem of infinate regress. The infinate regress is a fallacy because the argument can never lead to a conclusion, only more premises.

[quote]
And IMO, this is at a level far removed from macroevolution. Any “being” that wrote the laws of physics and set the universe in motion can surely guide evolution entirely without our ability to even be cognizant about it.

“When you do things right, no one can be sure you’ve done anything at all.”[/quote]

I disagree that it is far removed. I believe the “something”, God if your will, set the laws of the universe in motion which inevitably led to evolution of life. I do agree that we can lack cognition about it. I believe we what we “know” collectively as humans, can fit on the tip of a needle compared to what there is to be known.

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Excellent question! Concieving infinity has nothing to do with the problem of infinate regress. The infinate regress is a fallacy because the argument can never lead to a conclusion, only more premises.[/quote]

It’s not a logic fallacy, just because a conclusion derived from a given line of logic leads to more premises doesn’t mean the line of logic is flawed. Aristotle himself says that based on the premise of all knowledge is only derived from what is demonstrable, infinite regression is the logical conclusion. He further states that demonstrable knowledge derived from an unknown source is not, in fact, scientific knowledge. He argues that there is knowledge that cannot be demonstrated (or information we cannot know) but clearly states that this is not scientific knowledge (i.e. supernatural).

So a “being” that we might only be tangentially conscious of, if at all, has a close and intimate intermingling with an idea wholly our own creation and generated strictly within our consciousness? And this is highly relevant to macroevolution as derived from demonstrable science?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Kiwigeezer wrote:

What i think we will find in the future is that the genetic code is more more responsive to external stimulus. It will arm our offspring with the necessary tools to survive in that world eg the removal of unnecessary body features eg wisdom teeth, thick body hair etc

Read up on epigenetics, the genome is pretty rigid, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do anything with it.

We will also find that this happens much faster than we currently think, hence no intermediate fossil record.
But i cant prove it.

Genetic and epigenetic factors have already armed us with things a powerful capacity called intellect. It allows us to snatch solutions out of the ether and see the future in order to anticipate, prevent, and solve problems rather than react to them and just survive. Not to say that the genome is useless as a survival means, it’s the most successful thus far, but intellect extends survival outside of the strictly chemical realm.

It also allows us to determine many many things not recorded in the fossil record…[/quote]

Cheers for the link mate, very interesting.
I’m glad I studied science at university or I’d be like, what?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
pat36 wrote:

Excellent question! Concieving infinity has nothing to do with the problem of infinate regress. The infinate regress is a fallacy because the argument can never lead to a conclusion, only more premises.

It’s not a logic fallacy, just because a conclusion derived from a given line of logic leads to more premises doesn’t mean the line of logic is flawed.
[/quote]
Yes it does because you cannot deduce a conclusion from an infinate amount of premises. You can infer a conclusion based on a sample but you cannot make an infalible argument based on an infinate amount of premises. It is just not possible.

[quote]
I disagree that it is far removed…

So a “being” that we might only be tangentially conscious of, if at all, has a close and intimate intermingling with an idea wholly our own creation and generated strictly within our consciousness? And this is highly relevant to macroevolution as derived from demonstrable science?[/quote]

I didn’t say IT had a close intermingling, just that if IT set things in motion then IT is responsible to for the way things are today. Whether or not IT is intimate with the creation is simply not provable. That is a matter of faith alone.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I think we were created and evolved. Evolution at least in a general sense works. But regressing backwards by simply asking where things cames from you essetially get to an infinate regress. Since an infinate regress is a logical fallacy one has to conclude the very first thing that ever existed had to come from something, someone, or somewhere. I still believed Aristotle had it right with his thoery of the unmoved-mover and unchanged-changer.
The differnce between theists and antheists is this: Theists believe that something came from an orgional something in the end we call God. Atheists believe that something came from nothing. Logically, the latter does not work. [/quote]

So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

What?

The “something comes from nothing” argument is a fallacy. The simple response is, did God come from nothing?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

What?

The “something comes from nothing” argument is a fallacy. The simple response is, did God come from nothing?
[/quote]

I think everyone agrees that the universe as we know it has some sort of beginning. Now, when you speak of a higher power one assumes that the physical laws that us humans are bound by don’t apply to this higher power. See the universe as a confined system operating according to specific physical laws.

Now, if this universe has a Creator then it is not necessary for this Creator to adhere to the rules of the system He created. Hence, a supernatural Creator doesn’t necessarily have to adhere to natural laws.

Now whether you believe in the supernatural or not is another story but it is somewhat of a straw man to ask the question who created God?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:

So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

[/quote]

but the universe had a beginning

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:

So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

but the universe had a beginning[/quote]

Most probably, but why assume that the cause of the universe is supernatural, instead of natural?

Why assume that the Big Bang came from nothing? No one knows if before there was nothing or something… why assume nothing + divine entity?

What we call “The universe” might not be the whole of nature. In fact, many of the current physics theories about the universe allow for a huge amount of possible universes… the question might never be settled, as we seem forever confined inside our “sample of one.”

As for God, excluding Him from the questions you pose to the universe (what caused Him, where did He come from, what did He do for the eternity before creating the universe, etc.) is simply an arbitrary way of avoiding the questions. Basically, everything you attribute to God, can be attributed to “Nature” and it removes a divine entity from the process. You could still call it God, but then you’ve got the God of Spinoza (Pantheism), not the anthropomorphic, interventionist God of the Bible.